Question about DNG files (Page 4): Very good post on the front end Jeepdaddy, and on the back end an affirmation of my points a few days ago about the cost of storage space as it...

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

jeep_daddy wrote:

My humble opinion:

1. Keep them in CR2 format because Canon' (DPP) software can interpret everything that the camera wrote to the image while the image was taken e.g. focus point, picture styles, crops etc. No other software can do this but Canon' proprietary DPP software. Each release of DPP, which can always be downloaded free from Canon' web site, is updated to work on past and present Canon camera CR2 images.

2. Importing raw images from the card and converting them to DNG takes twice as long and when it's said and done there's no advantage. If someone has a crystal ball that can tell us that Adobe or Canon will go belly up I'd like to borrow it for the Lotto.

There are many ways to do this and you can choose the one that suits you. So it's always your choice. Also, I'm sure there will always be some kind of codec or CR2 to DNG or CR2 to tif, that will help those people with obsolete image file formats. Canon offers one free and Adobe offers one free and I'm sure other web sites have similar software converters.

Some people, me included will:

1. Transfer image in CR2 to the computer using LR or some other raw editing program.

2. Edit as much as they can in the raw editing program.

3. ...then continue editing the same image in a full layering editing program such as PSE, CS, PSP etc. and then save the layered image as a tif or psd. The user now has an image ***.CR2 and one named ***.tif or ***.psd (a total of 2 images on their hard drive)
3a. Some people save them as psd just so they know that if the file is seen on their hard drive and the psd extension is attached they know that is a layered image.
3b. Some people save save their layered images to tif for the same reason as psd in 3a now because file size is not limited on tif images as psd images are limited to, I'm not sure, either 2GB or 4GB. Tif images have no limit to the size of the file.

4. Now that there are 2 images saved, if you want to print, share, upload to web or social media sites, then you open the saved layered file (psd or tif) and do a save for web or save-as and now create a third image file called a jpg. This cuts the file size down for faster email and uploads, makes it compatible with commercial print services, and is universally recognized by 99.9% of computers today. You still keep the raw(CR2), the layered psd/tif, and now the jpg in case you ever need to reproduce and/or change per a request etc.

Now that there are 3 files that are the same image on your computer you might want to throw one or more of them away - but this really doesn't make sense since hard drives (storage) are so cheap today. I remember the days when a 20 Megabyte hard drive cost more than $400. Now they make thumb drives that hold 16 Gigabytes for $10 and a 1TB external hard drive for about $100. DON'T throw anything away. Instead take advantage of a good organization program such as LR to keep your image files organized.

My humble opinion: br br 1. Keep them in CR2 form... (show quote)

Very good post on the front end Jeepdaddy, and on the back end an affirmation of my points a few days ago about the cost of storage space as it relates to "redundant" storage. See here for the math......:

Much Ado About Nothing... well almost nothing.

Is your concern about the price of storing a 10 Mb vs. a smaller file size. Since you mention file and storage space size, I presume cost is the factor involved. I could be wrong, but based on size and price of storage have you done the math?

I'm sure you know that the cost of storage continues to drop. Twenty years ago... about 1992, the price of a 10-12 MB hard drive was between $300 to $399.

I know because I was selling them. A 286 based PC running 20 Mh, with a 12 MB hard drive, and 2Mb of RAM with an amber (monochrome) 10 inch monitor, keyboard (no mouse then) and a 9pin dot matrix printer running DOS 3.0 was $2195.00.

You could only have stored ten of your images on such a drive.

No Kidding here. People were lining up to buy them.

Well things have changed. Storage prices have dropped. They have dropped to the point that your concern seems a waste of time to me.

Let's do the math.

Today, I checked the price on a 1 Terrabyte Hard Drive in a big box store. The price was $129.00.

1 Terrabyte is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of information. Ten Megabytes is 10,000,000 bytes of information. Dividing the 1 Tb by 10Mb, you can store 100,000 files on a 1 TB drive.

Dividing the price of 129.00 by 100,000 files, it costs $00.00129 to store one file. Ten files would cost approx a Penny to store. 100 files would cost 13 cents. 1000 files would cost $1.29....

Do you really want to take the time and energy to make those 10Mb files any smaller when you can store 1000 of them for just over $1.

There are some good posts here on the functions of file compression, which is more about the simple concept of "throwing away data" and "degrading the files".

My observation has nothing to do with that, but simply the advisability of worrying about such a minimal issue.

I'd be using 100% on the compression factor, or at most 90% and buying a 2 or 3 Tb hard drive. The cost issue will go down even more because of the fact that doubling or tripling the storage space won't double or triple the cost of the drive... better, cheaper storage even then.

Heaven help you if you lose a 1, 2 or 3 Tb hard drive. Personally, I don't buy or use drives over 500 Gb. You can buy them for half the price of a 1 Tb drive.

So the math there remains the same. Store 1000 10Mb files for $1.30.

And at the end of all this, I do not find DNG as a positive function, going back to the original question. Which one to use? I find DNG irrelevant, and particularly am offended at the position take by Adobe, that this is the RAW file format of "the future"... It's unnecessary.

Nightski

I'm sure you know that the cost of storage continues to drop. Twenty years ago... about 1992, the price of a 10-12 MB hard drive was between $300 to $399.

I know because I was selling them. A 286 based PC running 20

I know that too. I should get a another hard drive for storage. I just haven't. Heck, there are probably some hard drives laying around in the computer junk yard at our store. We run four computers there, and we always seem to have a part when we need one. Then I could save every photo in CR2, DNG, TIFF, and JPEG! I guess it's just the organization bug in me that wants to decide on one thing and stick to it. Having so many files for each photo seems messy to me.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Nightski wrote:

I'm sure you know that the cost of storage continu... (show quote)

I can appreciate your last comment. The correct balance for each of us falls somewhere between "hoarding" and being a "neat freak". Not suggesting which one you are, but I am aligned more toward the "hoarding" side, but I would like to think not far enough to warrant a 60 minute special on television.

I wish you good luck in determining a "work flow" that appeases both your efficient side, and your "neat" side.

I think I have been pointed enough to state that DNG does not appeal at all to "simply another format" for my hoarder propensity, and is not necessarily a better format even if one is "married" to Adobe products.

I've been an advocate of Adobe since the time they only produced products for the Apple/Macintosh platform. I watched their stumbling transition to the PC side (or as mac users used to call it... The Dark Side) because of the much larger market potential.

However in the most recent past, I have some concerns about most of Adobes decisions being far more self serving than better provisions for users. This new rental/lease/cloud move on their part will be interesting in terms of their survival.

Nightski

However in the most recent past, I have some concerns about most of Adobes decisions being far more self serving than better provisions for users. This new rental/lease/cloud move on their part will be interesting in terms of their survival.[/quote]

And I thought this was such an innocent simple question. No chance for controversy here ... LOL...I guess everyone has an opinion, and I just have to make up my mind how I feel about it. At least I'm walking away with a little more information than what I started with. And as for the Adobe Cloud thing, this may be old fashioned, but I like to own my software. That may be a thing of the past though, in the not so distant future. And not just with Adobe software.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Nightski wrote:

quote=saichiez However in the most recent past, I... (show quote)

There will always be someone doing it differently. There is no black and white way to do anything. You can look at how others do it and figure out what works best for you.

I'm with you on the cloud situation. But like anything else, I may just suck it up and pay monthly. I already pay for the gym membership, weightwatchers, T-mobile, Dish Network, and everything else monthly. At least I can still buy a book or a song and it belongs to me. I have the option to rent, lease or purchase a car - new or used.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

It seems like everyone is going CLOUD. EA Games has gone CLOUD with it's most popular Games - Call of Duty. Movies are now stored in the CLOUD. I think this is because of the vast amount of money being lost through pirating. I don't pirate software or movies, still, I do not like the idea of this CLOUD thing.

Annie_Girl Loc: It's none of your business

Bangee5 wrote:

It seems like everyone is going CLOUD. EA Games has gone CLOUD with it's most popular Games - Call of Duty. Movies are now stored in the CLOUD. I think this is because of the vast amount of money being lost through pirating. I don't pirate software or movies, still, I do not like the idea of this CLOUD thing.

While I'm all for technology, I still don't know how I feel about adobe moving Photoshop to the cloud and having to pay a monthly fee. I get to write it off as a cost of doing business but still I do wish they would have given me the option of leasing via the cloud or outright purchase of the program.

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

Nightski wrote:

However in the most recent past, I have some concerns about most of Adobes decisions being far more self serving than better provisions for users. This new rental/lease/cloud move on their part will be interesting in terms of their survival.

No doubt Adobes decisions are self serving. But I doubt this change will affect their survival. I read somewhere that about 20% of Adobe customers are photographers. Of that 20% they will retain an unknown number but probably a significant number as many pros will need something beyond what PSE or LR can do in terms of image enhancement and thus switch to CC. Then there are enthusiasts like me who will try the first year at the 50% discount to see if it's worth it. If significant enhancements of interest to me as a photographer come along often enough then I may continue to subscribe.

Also Adobe has indicated that LR will remain a purchase program. There are hints they may incorporate Photoshop features used most often by photographers into LR. LR has some of them now but some are watered down versions like Content Aware Fill which is more powerful in Photoshop. This is simply speculation now but Adobe has acknowledged the pushback on the part of photographers and may be considering options on how to accommodate photographers who need the powerful photo enhancement features contained in Photoshop but don't need the other design/artistic oriented features.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

saichiez wrote:

............

And at the end of all this, I do not find DNG as a positive function, going back to the original question. Which one to use? I find DNG irrelevant, and particularly am offended at the position take by Adobe, that this is the RAW file format of "the future"... It's unnecessary.

I am of much the same opinion here in this regard.
I see no real point of changing my CR2 files and dowlnloading them as DNG instead.
I download as CR2.
Edit in several different programs, then "save as" jpg at the end.

terrysmay

I converted my CR2 files via Lightroom Import to DNG files and found that DPP, the canon-included software, didn't recognize them. All I could see were JPG files (I was using raw + JPEG). I wanted to use DPP to stitch together some panos, but couldn't. I also couldn't convert DNGs back into CR2s. I had to reimport all the CR2s. What a pain. Maybe someone could tell me how to deal with DNGs with DPP.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Nightski wrote:

Okay, but nobody has answered my question yet. Annie Girl says the CR2's will be obsolete, so save as DNG. Other people say I may lose some of the original data if I import as DNG. So what is the answer. Is it better to import as DNG into Lightroom or import as CR2? And why?

If a person commits to the use of Adobe products, it seems logical, then, to use their file format. But, as previously stated, the major benefit of using DNG is that ALL of the edit/EXIF data is stored in that DNG file. If you use another raw file format, the Adobe tools create a "sidecar" file to store that data. This means that for each and every photo you take, you have to keep up with two files, assuming your time to edit the photo was worth something. If you accidentally lose/delete that sidecar file, all of your edits are gone.

I, too, debated whether to keep the NEF format, or convert to DNG. When I realized how the sidecar file worked, and what caused it, the decision was easy. Convert to DNG.

Nightski

Annie_Girl wrote:

While I'm all for technology, I still don't know how I feel about adobe moving Photoshop to the cloud and having to pay a monthly fee. I get to write it off as a cost of doing business but still I do wish they would have given me the option of leasing via the cloud or outright purchase of the program.

I know how I feel about it...it stinks...but what can you do?

Nightski

lighthouse wrote:

I am of much the same opinion here in this regard.
I see no real point of changing my CR2 files and dowlnloading them as DNG instead.
I download as CR2.
Edit in several different programs, then "save as" jpg at the end.

I downloaded a set of photos from my card to DNG. Something weird happened. The photos became squished after I edited them AND exported them to jpeg. I think I'll stick to using the CR2 file. I've never had any trouble with it, so why fix something that's not broken.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

terrysmay wrote:

I converted my CR2 files via Lightroom Import to DNG files and found that DPP, the canon-included software, didn't recognize them. All I could see were JPG files (I was using raw + JPEG). I wanted to use DPP to stitch together some panos, but couldn't. I also couldn't convert DNGs back into CR2s. I had to reimport all the CR2s. What a pain. Maybe someone could tell me how to deal with DNGs with DPP.

Canon does not support DNG. Since I use DPP as well as lightroom, that's the main reason I leave my files in the cr2 format. There is something called the Adobe DNG converter which can extract Canon RAW files from DNGs, but I think success will be determined by how the original RAW file was imported.

terrysmay

Thanks. Maybe I will give the converter a try.